Questions and Answers - December 4

1.
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the
Minister of Finance: What reports has he
received on the competitiveness of New Zealand’s business
sector?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of
Finance): I have received the World Bank’s report
Doing Business 2013, which assesses how easy it is to do
business in 185 economies around the world. Overall, New
Zealand is rated the third-easiest economy for doing
business, behind Singapore and Hong Kong. We are ahead of
the US; the United Kingdom, in seventh place; Australia, in
10th; and Japan, in 24th. Through the Business Growth Agenda
and other measures, the Government is working hard to help
New Zealand businesses be more competitive so that they can
invest further and employ more people.

Jami-Lee
Ross: How does the World Bank measure New Zealand
and other economies in assessing the ease of doing business?
[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order!
The Minister has not even opened his mouth.

Hon
BILL ENGLISH: The World Bank assesses 10 specific
areas in respect of ease of doing business. They include
starting a business, dealing with construction permits,
getting electricity, registering property, getting credit,
protecting investors, paying taxes, trading across borders,
enforcing contracts, and resolving insolvency. The World
Bank confirms that New Zealand, across these 10 different
dimensions, has an excellent environment for doing business,
but, of course, it needs to improve so that we can provide
more jobs for more New Zealanders.

Jami-Lee
Ross: What other reports has the Minister received
regarding the performance of New Zealand
businesses?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The
performance of our businesses matters, because the key to
more jobs is businesses that are willing and able to provide
those jobs. The latest ANZ Business Outlook survey shows an
improvement in business confidence in the context of a
reasonably flat second half of the year, with a net 26
percent of businesses expecting general economic conditions
to improve. Businesses’ own-activity expectations are a
bit higher, with a net 32 percent of respondents expecting
more activity in their business over the coming
year.

Jami-Lee Ross: What steps is the
Government taking to help improve the competitiveness and
productivity of New Zealand businesses?

Hon BILL
ENGLISH: The Government is relentlessly focused on
the competitiveness and productivity of our businesses. Over
the past 4 years we have reformed the tax system by lowering
taxes on business and increasing consumption tax and tax on
property investment. We have reduced red tape, invested
heavily in modern infrastructure, and increased investment
in science and innovation. We have set out this extensive
programme in the documents published as part of the
Government’s Business Growth Agenda.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Minister’s
Statements

2. ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First)
to the Minister of Trade: Does he
stand by his statement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership that
“It’s going to be big. It’s going to be significant
and it’s going to help New Zealanders find well-paid
jobs”; if so, on what evidence does he base this
claim?

Mr SPEAKER: Is some Minister going
to answer the question?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy
Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister
of Trade: Yes, he stands by that statement. If
concluded, the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be New
Zealand’s largest free-trade area. It includes four of our
top 10 trading partners, it is home to 650 million
consumers, and it represents US$21 trillion of the global
economy. Collectively the group takes nearly 40 percent of
New Zealand exports and, of course, it includes the US, with
which a free-trade agreement has long been a top foreign
policy priority for successive New Zealand
Governments.

Andrew Williams: How can he
reconcile the necessity for secrecy regarding the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, yet at the same time make claims
that the agreement will provide jobs for New
Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, it is
hardly a secret that there are negotiations. I think there
are 500 people from—how many countries—

Rt Hon
John Key: 11.

Hon BILL ENGLISH:
—eleven countries turning up in Auckland, and it seems to
be pretty well-known. The fact is we think a free-trade
agreement would be a good idea. We are willing to conduct
the reasonable process of negotiation in good faith with our
negotiating partners to achieve that agreement. We
understand Opposition parties are opposed to the jobs that
would flow from a free-trade agreement. That is their policy
position; it is not ours.

Hon Clayton
Cosgrove: Will he have as a negotiation bottom line
the protection of existing New Zealand intellectual property
law, and will he ensure that New Zealand’s position is not
simply the adoption of the intellectual property laws of the
United States of America?

Hon BILL
ENGLISH: That issue, along with a number of others,
I am sure, will be a matter of pretty intensive negotiation,
because it is pretty clear that the parties are negotiating
from different starting positions.

Andrew
Williams: Are there any specific aspects of the
Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement that could erode or
limit New Zealand’s sovereignty; if so, what are
they?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, not in an
unacceptable way. The fact is that when we are doing
agreements with other countries, both we and they often have
to give up some aspect of their policy that they did think
was important but they give it up in order to achieve the
larger benefits of free trade. So this is a process that is
not without compromise, but it certainly will not be a
compromise on our sovereignty.

Andrew
Williams: How will the Trans-Pacific Partnership
affect the Overseas Investment Act in regards to prohibiting
performance requirements and industry incentives for the
film industry?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not
sure whether particularly that second statement is correct,
but the Government is not planning any changes to the
Overseas Investment Act.

Hon Clayton
Cosgrove: Will he have as a negotiation bottom
line, and can he give us an assurance, that there will be no
erosion of Pharmac’s position in New Zealand in respect of
medical drug purchase and distribution?

Hon BILL
ENGLISH: The Government’s approach will be
articulated in precise terms through the negotiation, but we
share with the previous Government a strong desire to
maintain the effectiveness and the independence of
Pharmac.

Andrew Williams: Is the Minister
saying that the film industry will be totally unaffected and
that current industry subsidies will not be affected by the
Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement?

Hon BILL
ENGLISH: I would not want to prejudge the way the
negotiations would go over the next 12 months or so, but the
process does allow for the kind of arrangements that the New
Zealand Government applies to the New Zealand film
industry.

Andrew Williams: Will the
Minister assure the House that this Government will not sign
the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement unless the US
removes subsidies from its agricultural
sector?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is certainly
a long-term aim of the New Zealand Government to see those
agricultural subsidies eliminated. The same discussion has
been going on for 50 years with the European Union, and at
different times we have made progress. So it is very
important in this negotiation that we see progress, but
again in the spirit of good faith with our negotiation
partners, I would not want to pre-empt the result of
it.

Prime
Minister—Statements

3. DAVID SHEARER
(Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime
Minister: Does he stand by his statement “…You
can trust us. If we say we’re going to do something we do
it. If we don’t, we don’t … that’s why I’ve stuck
to my guns and I haven’t campaigned on one thing and done
something different.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime
Minister): Yes. That is why we campaigned on
delivering a whole range of policies that have made New
Zealand a better place, including putting 600 more police on
the streets, bringing in tougher bail laws, increasing
elective surgery by 35,000 operations a year, shortening
cancer patient waiting-times, funding Plunket 24/7, funding
Herceptin, and boosting front-line services, including 800
more full-time permanent staff doctors and 2,000 more nurses
in our district health boards.

David
Shearer: Does he stand by his statement: “And I
think New Zealanders will judge me on not just how I respond
to the big issues of the day but also how I treat people who
are marginalised and in need.”; if so, what will he do to
address inequality, which has increased to the highest level
ever, under his Government?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: Yes, I do stand by that statement. If you look
at the Government’s record, despite the very difficult
economic times we have actually run a deficit that has
protected the most vulnerable people. That has included
substantial Working for Families payments without
adjustments. That has included a programme for rheumatic
fever. That has included programmes in a number of areas to
help those who are down on their luck. So no one can really
argue that this Government, in very difficult economic
times, has not made great strides to try to assist those who
are least well off.

David Shearer: Does
he stand by his statement: “… I am proud to be the Prime
Minister who takes responsibility for the fact that
unemployment capped at 7 percent in this country,”, and
why is he now not taking responsibility for the fact that it
has exceeded 7.3 percent?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: Well, for a start-off, I do take
responsibility, and, secondly, what I can say is that we
live in a world where the international conditions are
difficult—we accept that. But the Government can and does
do things that are within its control. As examples of the
things that we have done to try to create more jobs, we have
brought in the 90-day trial period, which has created more
than 13,000 jobs; we have introduced the starting out wage
to lower the barrier to work for our youngest workers; we
have clarified the status of an independent contractor,
which saw 3,000 people working on The Hobbit movies, we have
set a 9-month time for consenting projects of national
significance, we have vigorously pursued free-trade
agreements, we have reduced the cost to business of the
emissions trading scheme, we have increased investment in
infrastructure, we have reduced—

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! I think the Prime Minister has
given a sufficient answer.

David Shearer:
Has he kept his promise on early childhood education that
“We will keep 20 hours and maintain existing subsidies and
controls.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, 20
hours remains.

David Shearer: Does he
regret standing in Westpac Stadium saying: “… the
equivalent of this entire stadium—and more—leaves every
year to live permanently in Australia … I’m convinced we
can give them a reason, and a purpose, to stay …”, given
that the only stadium in the country that could now host the
numbers leaving is Eden Park?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: Yes, I do stand by that. If one looks overall
at migration over the period of time that National has been
in office, there are more people in New Zealand than there
were beforehand. We are having a little bit of a flood, but
nothing more serious than we have seen internationally. If
we do want to send a lot of people overseas, I guess the way
to do it is to have more inflation, a capital gains tax,
basically give Working for Families payments to
beneficiaries, and have Russel Norman as the Minister of
Finance, which I understand is only millimetres away. The
Green Party made a—

Mr SPEAKER:
Order!

David Shearer: Given New Zealand
has the highest unemployment rate in 13 years, with the
highest emigration rate ever, the worst inequality ever, and
a fiscal policy that is based on selling New Zealand’s
assets, does he stand by his statement that if he left
tomorrow, he will leave the country in better shape than he
found it?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. And a
couple of things: I am not leaving tomorrow, but, then
again, I am not the one facing a vote in
February.

Trans-Pacific
Partnership—Investor-State Dispute
Provisions

4. METIRIA TUREI
(Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime
Minister: Does he stand by his statement regarding
investor state disputes procedures proposed in the
Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement that “An exclusion
solely for Australia and not for everybody else is unlikely
to be something we would support”; if so,
why?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):
Yes. This statement simply reflects the reality that an
international trade negotiation is a reciprocal process with
give and take on all parts. Negotiating parties, including
New Zealand, are unlikely to agree that special treatment,
such as an exclusion from investor-State dispute settlement
procedures, applies to one party but not to the other
parties. I would also note that trade agreements are about
finding a balance of benefits for everyone, and the benefits
New Zealand could gain from a successful Trans-Pacific
Partnership negotiation will be very significant
indeed.

Metiria Turei: Will New Zealand
open itself up to litigation from firms based in the Trans-
Pacific Partnership countries should we sign up to the
investor-State dispute settlement procedures, which
Australia has rejected?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY:
Well for a start-off, I do not think it is actually correct
to say that Australia has rejected them. What is true to say
is that there are different countries bringing different
perspectives to the negotiation, but when a final
Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is agreed, all parties
are likely to sign up. In terms of the first point, no, I do
not think that is of concern because investor-State dispute
settlement procedures allow a safeguard for New Zealand. New
Zealand has already signed two free-trade agreements that
include investor-State dispute settlement procedures. They
were done under a Labour Government. They were the China
freetrade agreement and the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free
Trade Agreement. They include the very safeguards that would
protect New Zealand under those provisions. They also, I
might add, protect New Zealand companies when they invest
overseas. That is the very purpose of the investor- State
dispute settlement procedure requirements.

Metiria
Turei: Can the Prime Minister guarantee that there
will be no chilling effect on New Zealand’s environmental
policy from these procedures given that in Germany that
Government was forced to water down environmental controls
on coal-fired power stations or face being sued for more
than US$2 billion for breach of investor-State
provisions?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said,
I think that is unlikely. As I have said in regard to my
earlier answer, fundamentally New Zealand does make sure
that, and has ensured in the past, there are safeguards when
it comes to investor-State dispute settlement
provisions.

Metiria Turei: How does the
Prime Minister propose to guarantee that there will be no
chilling effect on New Zealand’s health policy, given that
in Peru the Government is being sued for $800 million
because it regulated to stop the severe lead poisoning of
children by Renco Group’s metal smelter?

Rt Hon
JOHN KEY: I am simply not aware of the provisions
in Peru, but I can tell you the way that New Zealand
legislates and goes about these free-trade agreements, and
it is very careful to give itself the safeguards that we
would think make sense. I think if one goes and has a look
overall and takes a step back, then the purpose of New
Zealand engaging in the Trans-Pacific Partnership is to sign
an agreement that would lift economic growth and provide
jobs and opportunities for New Zealanders. On the best
forecasting that we have so far seen off a basic prediction
out to 2025, that is worth about US$2.9 billion to the New
Zealand economy. I think that is a prize worth going after,
and I think New Zealand should continue down the
negotiations. The same kinds of fears that the Green Party
and New Zealand First want to raise in the House are the
very same ones that were argued against the China free-trade
agreement. I suspect they would have been the same kinds of
arguments made against CER. They were the same kinds of
arguments put against the ASEANAustralia- New Zealand Free
Trade Agreement. Is anyone in this House, other than the
Minister of Finance in waiting, seriously saying that we
should rip up our China free-trade agreement and everything
else?

Metiria Turei: How exactly does the
Prime Minister intend to guarantee that there will be no
chilling effect on New Zealand’s health policy, given that
in Ecuador Chevron Oil has used investor-State procedures to
stop that Government from taking action to recover clean-up
costs for the dumping of 16 billion gallons of toxic waste
into the drinking water of 30,000 people?

Rt Hon
JOHN KEY: It has finally, after a few months now,
all come clear to me: the reason that the Green Party wants
to follow the policies of Argentina in printing money is it
clearly gets all of its ideas from Latin
America.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point
of order, Mr Speaker. The question was a straight question,
and asked for—[Interruption]

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! A point of order is being
heard.

Metiria Turei: I asked the Prime
Minister how he intended to guarantee against a chilling
effect on New Zealand policy, and gave an
example—

Mr SPEAKER: I will let the
member repeat her question.

Metiria
Turei: How does the Prime Minister intend to
guarantee that there will be no chilling effect on New
Zealand’s health policy, given that in Ecuador Chevron Oil
used investor-State procedures to stop the Government taking
action to recover clean-up costs for the dumping of 16
billion gallons of toxic waste into the drinking water of
30,000 people?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I have
said in numerous answers to numerous questions from the
member, there will be safeguards in the New Zealand
law.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime
Minister have any concerns that Philip Morris could use the
investor-State procedures in the Trans-Pacific Partnership
to sue New Zealand, given its actions in Australia and the
veiled threats made by its spokesperson in New Zealand,
Chris Bishop; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: Firstly, you cannot stop anybody suing you,
but because someone sues you, it does not mean that they
will win. There are plenty of examples in this House of
that. Secondly, as I said earlier, we are looking at and
will ensure that if investor-State dispute settlement takes
place as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations,
there will be safeguards, so that will allow us to do that.
I go back to my earlier point that, in the end, the
Trans-Pacific Partnership will be a free-trade agreement
that binds the same rules on all 11 countries. Now the
member will

be aware that Australia as of 1 December went
into its programme of plain packaging. It is not in any way
concerned about doing that and continuing to be part of the
officials group and continuing to negotiate as part of the
Trans-Pacific Partnership. That tells you that it must
believe that the two policies are compatible. If it did not,
it would not have introduced plain packaging or it would not
be sitting around the table at the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, which just shows you that the member, like Jane
Kelsey, spends a whole lot of time fearmongering, and is
fundamentally wrong.

Metiria Turei: Why
is the Prime Minister willing for New Zealand to sign up to
the parts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership that our closest
and largest trading partner is completely unwilling to sign
up to, because that Government wants to protect its rights
to legislate for public health and the
environment?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said
in numerous answers to numerous questions, the Trans-Pacific
Partnership would have the same rules applying to all
parties. So in the end, if agreement cannot be reached
amongst those 11 parties in relation to investor-State
dispute settlement rules, which apply to every
country—that includes Australia, New Zealand, Mexico,
Canada, the United States, Peru, and others like Singapore,
Brunei, you name them—then we will not have those
provisions in there. But I take a step back and say, yes, of
course there will be a bit of give and take on all these
different rules. New Zealand will make sure it safeguards
its provisions. I think we should actually congratulate the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, because in my opinion
it has a world-class negotiating team, which has done a
first-class job for this country on numerous examples in the
past, and it will continue to do so in the future. And the
overall prize of all of this is more jobs. I go back to what
I said on TV on Monday morning—when I picked up the New
Zealand Herald on Monday morning the first thing I saw was
yet another Green MP, Catherine Delahunty, opposed to jobs,
and opposed to growth, and that is why Russel Normal wants
to be the Minister of Finance.

Dr Russel
Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We
have repeatedly had to put up with the Prime Minister
answering very simple, straight questions with attacks on
the Green Party. He should just answer the question.
[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Which
National member is volunteering to leave, if they keep up
that noise when I am on my feet? That is enough. The
member’s complaint is not unreasonable. The Prime Minister
should not have put that last bit in. We do not want to
carry on down that track any further.

Metiria
Turei: I seek leave to table an Official
Information Act response from the office of Tim Groser,
setting out the talking points in relation to Australia’s
refusal to engage in the investor-State dispute resolution
process for the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Mr
SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is
there any objection? There is no objection. document, by
leave, laid on the Table of the House.

and Employment: What
progress has the Government made to improve the viability of
the Student Loan Scheme?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE
(Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and
Employment): The Government is making very good
progress. The latest student loan scheme annual report shows
the overall cost of lending has fallen by 17.5 percent over
the last 3 years. The cost has fallen from 47c per dollar in
2009 to 39c in the dollar in 2012, and the report projects
it to drop to 37c in the dollar next year. That is a
significant improvement, but one we are working to improve
further. The Government remains committed to interest-free
student loans but it is important that the scheme is
affordable long term for students and for taxpayers and
sustainable for the country.

Simon
O’Connor: What progress is the Government making
to get students debt-free faster?

Hon STEVEN
JOYCE: I am happy to report an 11 percent increase
in student loan repayments in 2011-12 to $767 million, which
is up from $691 million in 2010-11. Further, the median
repayment time for those who left study in 2008 is 6.7
years, which compares with 7.4 years for those who left
study in 2003. For 2008 leavers who remain in New Zealand
the median repayment time is down to 5.5 years. Through
Inland Revenue we are also targeting overseas-based
borrowers who are not meeting their repayment obligations.
To date we have gained back just under $20 million through
the latest campaign, which accounts for $12 for every dollar
spent on the project. Those gains have freed up money for
reinvesting in quality tertiary education provision and
enabling the Government to improve our overall fiscal
position.

Simon O’Connor: How is the
Government ensuring students are in the best position to
repay their loans?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As
part of our changes to tighten the student loan scheme, the
Government has moved to ensure that student loans are used
effectively by people to obtain qualifications that enable
them to earn enough to pay their loan back and contribute to
this country. This has coincided with a continuing uptrend
in performance. Course completion rates have risen from 77
percent in 2009 to 82 percent last year, while qualification
completion rates over the same period have increased from 62
to 71 percent. It shows the tertiary sector is responding
well to our signals to focus on performance and deliver
better value for taxpayers’ money.

Grant
Robertson: In light of that answer, what does he
say to the 55-year-old woman who came to my electorate
office having lost her job and who is wanting to retrain but
is unable to do so because he and his Government have taken
away the eligibility for people aged over 55 to borrow the
living costs of their loan, or does he not think she has got
a contribution to make to New Zealand’s
economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Actually, that
person over the age of 55 can continue to borrow from the
student loan scheme for their course fees—that is
correct.

Grant Robertson: But not for
living costs.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Not for
their living costs—that is correct. Of course, somebody
who has lost their job and is unable to get a job is able to
qualify for welfare support, but they can do student
borrowing through the student loan scheme for their
fees.

Work and Income—Funding Assistance for Job
Seekers

6. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour)
to the Minister for Social
Development: How many times, if any, has the
Transition to Work Grant, or similar funds, been used by
Work and Income New Zealand to purchase tickets to Australia
for job seekers who have found work there?

Hon
PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): I
cannot answer the question. The grant has been in place
since 2007. Because it is not the policy intent or
acceptable practice, there is not a place to put it in our
system, so I would have to manually go back through the last
5 years, and in the last 3 hours I have not had time to do
that.

Jacinda Ardern: Is there any way to
know with certainty how the discretionary Transition to Work
grant of up to $1,500 has been used by Work and Income
managers?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Since
September this year any decisions around grants to move
people or anything else have been escalated to head office.
That has happened quite recently. There are in the system
places, obviously, where you put what the grants are for. I
can give the member some details on the average grant, which
is $363 a week. We have had more than 500,000 of them in the
last 5 years, so there is a lot. Some are for clothing
costs; we help dress people. Some are for childcare costs
while someone goes for an interview. [Interruption] I am
trying to answer this question.

Jacinda
Ardern: Is there anything in the Transition to Work
policy that would rule out the fund being used to purchase
tickets to Australia?

Hon PAULA BENNETT:
Well, except that it is not the policy intent, and that is
very clear to staff.

Jacinda Ardern: Can
she assure the House that the discretionary Transition to
Work grant has never been used to purchase or contribute to
one-way fares to Australia for job seekers who have an offer
of employment there?

Hon PAULA BENNETT:
As I have said, no, I cannot, particularly because it has
been around since 2007. So it was actually introduced under
the previous Labour Government. The legislation is actually
silent on that, and I cannot give a guarantee, that far
back, as to whether or not that has
happened.

Jacinda Ardern: Does she know
what is going on with her own front-line services, given
that I have been informed of a meeting where Work and Income
managers confirmed that Work and Income had offered
financial assistance to job seekers to travel to Australia
to take up employment?

Hon PAULA BENNETT:
If the member has evidence of that, I would be very
interested in seeing it. It is not my expectation. It is not
the expectation of the policy intent. However, it is case
managers who distribute it. It has been made very clear to
them that they should not be paying for any airfares
overseas, and, as far as I have seen to date, I do not have
evidence of that.

Jacinda Ardern: Will
she investigate whether or not, and how often, the
Transition to Work grant has been used to purchase tickets
to Australia for job seekers?

Hon PAULA
BENNETT: Absolutely, because I would be very
unhappy to see that as common practice.

Primary
Growth Partnership—Successful Bids

7.
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country)
to the Minister for
Primary

Industries: What
announcements has he recently made on boosting innovation in
the New Zealand primary sector?

Hon DAVID CARTER
(Minister for Primary Industries): Yesterday I
announced that the Government’s Primary Growth Partnership
is to fund half of an $87 million innovation programme
proposed by one of New Zealand’s leading meat exporters,
ANZCO Foods. The programme will identify opportunities to
create new, high-value food ingredients and health care
products. This announcement lifts the total
Government-industry investment in the Primary Growth
Partnership to $665 million—further proof of this
Government’s commitment to lift economic growth through
primary sector innovation.

Shane Ardern:
Why is the Government focusing on increasing innovation and
improving productivity in the primary sector?

Hon
DAVID CARTER: This Government has set an ambitious
target of increasing exports from 30 percent to 40 percent
of GDP. As the primary sector makes up 72 percent of New
Zealand’s merchandise export and is the backbone of the
New Zealand economy, increasing innovation and improving
productivity are essential means of achieving this
target.

Shane Ardern: Has the Primary
Growth Partnership been successful in providing innovation
funding to a wide range of firms and sectors?

Hon
DAVID CARTER: Yes, it certainly has. Thanks to this
collaborative Government-industry approach, we have projects
under way across a complete range of sectors, from dairy to
arable, to red meat, to wool, to forestry, to seafood, to
aquaculture, and to mānuka honey. Over $300 million of
Government funding has been committed to a wide range of
firms, such as Zespri, Comvita, and Brownrigg Agriculture.
Even the Young Farmers organisation is involved in the Beef
and Lamb project.

New Zealand - Australia
Migration—Statement

8. Hon DAVID PARKER
(Labour) to the Minister of
Finance: Does he stand by his statement regarding
migration to Australia “What’s the point of standing in
the airport crying about

it?”; if so, how many people
have left permanently for Australia since he took office in
November 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of
Finance): As I said in answer to the same question
from the member on 24 July, 25 July, 26 July, and 1 August,
yes. My full statement was “What’s the point of standing
in the airport crying about it? We’ve just got to compete.
They can pay more but it’s hot and there’s lots of
flies. We pay less but you can go for a bike ride at
lunchtime.” Statistics New Zealand reports 173,715 people
migrated to Australia in that time period. I note that in
this period 59,000 people migrated from Australia to New
Zealand, leaving a net outward migration of 114,000. There
are signs that this migration is levelling off. I note that
in the 9 years to October 2008, despite benign economic
conditions, 310,000 people left for Australia.

Hon
David Parker: Given that more than 173,000 people
have left for Australia since he took office in 2008, and
the year to October 2012 saw 53,695 Kiwis leave, does he
agree that his Government has failed to fulfil its 2008
promise to reduce the number of people leaving for
Australia?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. I think
the reason that there has been higher out-migration has been
pretty straightforward. Australia had a once-in-a-century
boom in its resource prices. That means that up until
recently it has been sheltered from the effects of the
global financial crisis. The outmigration is directly
proportional to the fact that Australia’s growth rate was
higher than New Zealand’s. Over the next few years they
look to be pretty similar, and that is why the out-migration
is likely to slow down and the number leaving Australia to
come to New Zealand, which was 59,000 in the 4 years that
the member referred to, is likely to increase.

Hon
David Parker: Is he aware that the 173,715 New
Zealanders who have left for Australia represent 4 percent
of New Zealand’s total population, which is more than the
population of Hamilton, more than the population of Napier
and Hastings combined, and equivalent to Dunedin and
Invercargill combined?

Hon BILL ENGLISH:
I would believe those numbers if they came from Statistics
New Zealand and not from the Opposition spokesman on
finance; in this case I would have to divide them by seven
to get it right. But he is probably right.

Hon
David Parker: Does he agree that the New Zealanders
leaving for Australia in record numbers are doing so because
of low wages and a lack of jobs in New Zealand; if not, why
are 54,000 Kiwis leaving for Australia every
year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I explained to
the member, and which I think he knows, in around 2007
Australia experienced a once-in-100-years more than doubling
of its commodity prices. That gave Australia a large,
unexpected increase in income, and that has meant high
wages, which have attracted New Zealanders. Over the next
few years our growth rates are pretty similar, around 2.5 to
3.5 percent, and I would expect that those flows will slow
down a bit. The main thing for us to do is to focus on the
competitiveness of our businesses so that they can, for
instance, grow their businesses and exports to Australia,
and can employ more New Zealanders to do so.

Hon
David Parker: Why has the wage gap between
Australia and New Zealand continued to widen—using the
purchase price parity figure that the Prime Minister prefers
to use, it is now $27.73 a week wider under his
Government—after he campaigned in 2008 to narrow the
gap?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We could argue
about how to measure the wage gap. As the member will know,
because of New Zealand’s tax changes our after-tax incomes
are actually much closer to Australia’s than those figures
would indicate. Actually, when you look at the Australian
figures, it is surprising. If you take out the Western
Australia wage rates, it makes a significant difference. In
fact, if you take out Western Australia growth rates, the
Australian and New Zealand economies and wages have grown at
pretty similar rates through the last 3 or 4 years. Last
year Western Australia grew at 14 percent. That is almost
one and a half times the growth rate in China, and, frankly,
we are going to have to focus very hard on competitiveness
of our businesses to be able to match the enormous wages
paid in Western Australia.

Todd McClay:
In light of recent migration trends and their impact on the
housing market, what reports has the Minister received
detailing alternative approaches to housing?

Hon
BILL ENGLISH: Migration trends do have a
significant impact on housing. Just how many houses those
migrants might need, of course, depends on whether you get
your numbers wrong by 700 percent, as became apparent in the
answer to a question in the House last week, where our
spokesperson pointed out that building 100,000 houses over
10 years requires one house to be built every hour, night
and day, for an entire decade. The Opposition spokesman on
finance, however, thinks that that adds up to 600,000
houses, not 100,000 houses.

White Paper for
Vulnerable Children—Expert Advisory Group on Information
Security

9. TIM MACINDOE
(National—Hamilton West) to the Minister
for Social Development: What announcements has she
made on the Expert Advisory Group on Information Security,
who will oversee the development of the initiatives in the
Government’s White Paper for Vulnerable
Children?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social
Development): Today we have announced the
appointment of the former Governor-General the Rt Hon Sir
Anand Satyanand to lead the Expert Advisory Group on
Information Security. The Vulnerable Kids Information System
and the new risk predictor tool are vital in strengthening
protections for vulnerable children. The group will ensure
these tools are secure and easy for front-line professionals
to use while also balancing privacy and security
considerations.

Tim Macindoe: What will
the expert group focus on in regard to the Vulnerable Kids
Information System, known as ViKi, and the risk protector
tool?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, this group
will oversee the entire implementation, but there are
particular issues with the implementation, I think, that I
have asked them to really centre in on. When you are looking
at that information, it is who has access to it, what kind
of information is stored, should you know if your name is on
it or your child’s is, how long should we keep it, and can
you access it in 20 years. These are the sorts of difficult
but, I think, really important things that this group needs
to investigate.

Tim Macindoe: How will
the Vulnerable Kids Information System and the risk
predictor tool work to protect vulnerable children better
from abuse and neglect?

Hon PAULA
BENNETT: The most vital part of the whole
information system is that it is putting the pieces together
from different professionals, so that you know what children
are in there, what everyone knows about them, and you can
put it together. For all of the cases that I have
seen—whether they be coroners’ reports, to the Mel Smith
inquiry on children, to the evidence from both overseas and
locally—if you see a child who has been hideously abused
or even killed, if a professional had been able to put all
of the pieces together, I believe they would have acted
differently. This tool does that.

Schools,
Food—Prime Minister’s Statements

10.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the
Minister of Education: Does she agree with
all of the statements the Prime Minister has made regarding
food in schools?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of
Education): Yes, I do agree with all the Prime
Minister’s statements, as everyone does who is ambitious
for this country.

Chris Hipkins: Does she
stand by the statement that if the Government does not take
action to provide food in schools “we are effectively
punishing children for the sins of their parents.”, or
does she stand by the alternative statement that “the
fundamental responsibility lies with the parents of those
children to feed them.”—the first one made before the
National Government was elected, and the second one made
after?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, both are
right, and I completely agree because the full statement
that was made in 2007 was that we need to “challenge the
business community to work with us in

backing a programme
of providing food in low-decile schools for kids in need.”
In fact, Fonterra and Sanitarium have stepped up to that
challenge and provide 35,000 breakfasts a week to 534
schools, feeding 22,000 students. Since we came into
Government in 2009 we have provided $940,000 of funding to
KidsCan for their Food for Kids programme, so both are
correct.

Chris Hipkins: Does she stand by
the statement: “it’s a fact that kids can’t and
don’t learn if they are constantly hungry. Their brains
don’t develop properly and they can’t stay focused in
the classroom.”; if so, exactly what, in addition to the
funding for KidsCan, has the Government done to increase the
provision of food in schools?

Hon HEKIA
PARATA: This Government has increased and improved
the Fruit in Schools programme. When we came in, Labour was
funding it at $12 million, of which almost $6 million was
going on administration. We have made it more efficient, but
we have now—[Interruption] We have made it more efficient,
and we are providing fruit to—let me see—480 decile 1
and 2 schools currently participating, being about almost
97,000 children.

Nikki Kaye: What is the
Government doing in this area?

Hon HEKIA
PARATA: First and foremost, I would like to
acknowledge all the parents and families who work really
hard to ensure that their children have the food that they
need. What the Government does is supplement that, as I have
already indicated, through the Fruit in Schools
scheme—nearly 97,000 students—since 2009 and $940,000 to
KidsCan for 4,500 children a day in 223 schools. And we make
available, through the Ministry of Social Development,
special-needs grants for families, much of which goes on
food and which was $46 million in 2011, and, of course, our
Government invests billions in the welfare
system.

Chris Hipkins: Is the Minister
suggesting that giving a child a piece of fruit at morning
tea time is sufficient nutrition for them to be able to
maintain their focus on learning during the
day?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: As I said, this
supplements, first and foremost, what parents, families,
whānau, and aiga provide for their children. But in some
cases it might be. There are children who do have fruit for
breakfast. In fact, under the previous administration its
Healthy Eating - Healthy Action programme was trying to make
our children eat fruit for breakfast.

Chris
Hipkins: Why does the Government believe that
spending $562,000 on sports funding for private schools is
more important than fulfilling the Prime Minister’s
pre-election promise to provide food in schools for
vulnerable kids, given that the funding provided for KidsCan
is barely half that amount?

Hon HEKIA
PARATA: It is not an either/or; we provide both.
Why do we think it is legitimate? Because, in fact, although
private schools make up 3.5 percent of our schooling system,
each year they contribute $168 million net to our education
system.

Drugs, Psychoactive—Animal
Testing

11. MOJO MATHERS (Green)
to the Associate Minister of
Health: Other than the LD50 test, will he rule out
other animal tests for the pending psychoactive substances
testing regime?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate
Minister of Health): With regard to psychoactive
substances, I have directed the Ministry of Health to
develop a regulatory regime consistent with international
best practice and avoiding animal testing wherever possible.
The standards for approval for psychoactive substances will
be set by an independent expert committee to be established
early next year.

Mojo Mathers: Why is
there not a single non-animal testing option included in the
Ministry of Health’s testing regime recommendation paper
dated March 2012?

Hon PETER DUNNE: There
have been a number of alternative options proposed. They are
all to be considered by the expert committee. I should make
the point that the material that was the subject of the
release last week, which got the weekend publicity, was
neither ministry advice nor Government policy. They were
comments contained in a report from an independent
toxicologist.

Mojo Mathers: How does he
reconcile that omission with the purpose set out in Part 6
of the Animal Welfare Act to “replace animals as subjects
for research, and testing by substituting where appropriate,
non-sentient or non-living alternatives:”?

Hon
PETER DUNNE: I am not attempting to reconcile the
two statements for this reason. The material that the member
refers to, which was the basis of the publicity at the
weekend, was neither official advice to the Ministry of
Health nor a statement of Government policy, but a statement
by an independent toxicologist. The expert committee that I
referred to in my original answer, in developing the
standards for approval, will obviously be guided by all
relevant pieces of legislation, including the legislation to
which the member has referred.

Mojo
Mathers: I seek leave to table the Ministry of
Health report from March 2012, which outlines the proposed
safety testing regime and it is called Regulations governing
the control of novel psychoactive drugs defining parameters
associated with toxicity.

Mr SPEAKER:
Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any
objection? There is no objection. document, by leave, laid
on the Table of the House.

Mojo Mathers:
So will he now commission a report into non-animal options
for safety testing of new recreational drugs?

Hon
PETER DUNNE: Can I repeat for the member’s
benefit my original answer. I have directed the Ministry of
Health in developing the regulatory regime consistent with
international best practice to look at avoiding animal
testing wherever possible. As I said earlier, the precise
regime will be developed by the independent expert
committee, which will be established early next
year.

Earthquakes, Canterbury and
Christchurch—Repair and Rebuild of Residential
Homes

12. NICKY WAGNER
(National—Christchurch Central) to the
Minister for
Canterbury

Earthquake Recovery:
What progress is the Government making with rebuilding and
repairing residential homes in Christchurch?

Hon
GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake
Recovery): The Government is making considerable
progress with the repair and rebuild of residential homes
damaged by the Canterbury earthquakes. The Earthquake
Commission, through the Fletcher programme, has repaired
28,058 homes. This means that nearly one-third of the homes
damaged with under $100,000 of value in that damage have
been completed. Total payouts by the commission for
building, land, and contents claims now exceed $4 billion.
Southern Response, which handles 6,651 claims for the AMI
bailout, has settled 1,838 claims. More important, over 99
percent of customers’ assessments have been completed.
Southern Response is scheduling 1,000 builds and rebuilds in
this next construction season into 2013. All land in
Canterbury has now been zoned. Over 7,800 properties have
gone red and over 180,000 properties have been zoned green.
Insurers are reporting a gearing-up of resources to deliver
rebuilds and repairs in the year ahead. In addition, the
horizontal infrastructure repair and rebuild under the
Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team is now
invoicing $40 million a month across multiple civil
construction sites.

Nicky Wagner: What
has been the acceptance of the red zone offer for homeowners
on the worst-affected land?

Hon GERRY
BROWNLEE: To date, of the 7,022 people who have
received the Crown offer, 6,369 homeowners have signed a
sale and purchase agreement with the Crown. The Canterbury
Earthquake Recovery Authority has already settled 5,173
properties. This is a very positive and strong
response.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Will he
allow people living in perfectly habitable houses in the
residential red zone to remain there for a bit longer, given
that their new properties will not be ready to move

into
by the final settlement date of 30 April next year—one of
the requests that was made in the open letter to the Prime
Minister today?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Given
that to do that there would have to be maintenance of access
and also infrastructure to those homes, it would need to be
assessed on a case by case basis but I would have to say it
is unlikely.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek
leave to table the open letter to the Prime Minister of New
Zealand from the representatives of seven groups in
Christchurch that rallied on Saturday.

Mr
SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is
there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by
leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Lianne
Dalziel: I seek leave to table three letters: one
dated 1 November from me to the Minister for Canterbury
Earthquake Recovery as a follow-up from the cross-party
forum, where all parties raised concerns about those in the
red zone who will not have properties ready to move into by
30 April; a reply from the Hon Gerry Brownlee on 19
November; and my subsequent plea to him to reconsider of 21
November.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to
table those documents. Is there any objection?
[Interruption] Order! Is there any objection? There is
objection. There is objection.

The quashing of the convictions of Teina Pora for the rape and murder of Susan Burdett in 1992 has shone a spotlight once again on a major gap in the New Zealand justice system.

To all intents and purposes, access by New Zealanders to the Privy Council has now been closed. Yet the number of times in recent years when the Privy Council has quashed the findings of New Zealand courts has demonstrated that we are regularly(a) jailing the wrong person or(b) arriving at guilty verdicts on grounds sufficiently flawed as to raise serious doubts that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. More>>

ALSO:

WorkSafe NZ has laid one charge against the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) in relation to the shooting at the MSD Ashburton office on 1 September 2014 in which two Work and Income staff were killed and another was injured. More>>

New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters has announced his intention to stand in the Northland by-election, citing his own links to the electorate and ongoing neglect of the region by central government. More>>